There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.
Daniel Dennett
Image of the Day
Concentrated Benefits, Diffuse Costs, Crony Capitalists and Big Government
Guest Blog Comment: Follow-Up to Troll Attack
I'm dealing with some juvenile troll who did not respond well to yesterday's post on Trump. (The original post is at the top of the comment chain at the above link.) For some reason, he seems to be obsessing over my weight; some union trolls did the same thing a few weeks back on an IPI thead--one woman suggesting that I looked ready to eat my grandniece in a profile photo. Generally I try to avoid a flame war. The below comments were in response to his argument that fascism is a left-wing concept (usually you have to correct those who think of Hitler as a right-winger) and his response to my pessimism about the GOP's chances next year (what about the 2010 and 2014 elections--both of which were mid-terms by the way) because of Trump's scorched-earth nativism campaign. I've lightly edited the excerpt below for a couple of return shots. [And, for anyone interested, I've been working on my weight, and the pictures they are referencing were not recent, but I have a long diet ahead of me to get to my goal weight.]
Fascism, you economic illiterate, can be left-wing or right-wing. What they have in common is authoritarianism. You are confusing the left-wing version under Hitler and Mussolini. Fascism doesn't necessarily mean thuggish behavior. Look up DiLorenzo's essay on the Rockwell website.
Fascism basically refers to government control of the economy--the government doesn't necessarily nationalize all industries; fascists may allow the appearance of a private-sector, but one which knows its place in the State and its regulatory whims.
Both left-fascist Bernie Sanders and right-fascist Donald "Four Bankruptcies" Trump espouse economic nationalism. Both condemn open trade and immigration, factors which are strong determinants of economic growth. NR's Goldberg has a good current essay on Trumpism. He points out that only 18% of so-called conservatives were for single-payer healthcare. But when the cultists heard that Trump liked it, 44% were in favor. Now for those of us who are pro-liberty heard Trump praise single-payer, we knew this is all central planning nonsense no libertarian would ever agree with.
I and others independently have pointed out that Trump is a Herbert Hoover wannabe. Hoover implemented high-income tax hikes and high tariffs, started Mexican repatriation. (Hoover became more conservative after he saw FDR put domestic intervention on steroids.) Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
As for your prior comment about the 2010 and 2014 elections, it had nothing to do with bastard nativists. It had to do with a backlash against leftist policies out of the mainstream and Big Government.
"HONOLULU, HAWAII, June 13, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Live Action released new undercover footage today showing two Planned Parenthood clinics, in Maui and Honolulu, advising a woman how best to procure a sex-selective abortion of her baby girl because she wants a boy instead...In Honolulu, the Planned Parenthood counselor “Rogue” tells the woman it is okay to have multiple abortions of girl pregnancies so long as the abortions are spaced far enough apart. The Planned Parenthood counselor suggests paying for the abortions using Hawaii’s QUEST state health insurance." https://www.lifesitenews.com/.../video-hawaii-planned...
"March 16, 2015 (LiveActionNews.org) -- Live Action investigators traveled to five states – Texas, New York, Arizona, Hawaii, and North Carolina – and recorded evidence of abortion clinics’ willingness to participate in sex-selective abortions."
The troll's response was identical to the PP response in the first story. I also remember an extreme case several months back where the woman had aborted something like 17 girl babies in a row before she finally got a boy. It's like you can't even talk to these people; it's like trying to reason with monsters who gassed 6 million Jews. They don't have a conscience or any sense of morality beyond their ideology.
(Reason). The distinction between state action and private action is vital to a free society, and Rand Paul is dangerously blurring it by suggesting that Kim Davis has a First Amendment right to violate the 14th Amendment.
As someone who does not believe in "gay marriage" or the inappropriate use of State power to impose this morphed State construct of "marriage" on local communities, I do agree that Davis is violating her oath of office, which violates her contract with the State, and I would furthermore argue that religious accommodation is not an issue in light of something the author of the piece doesn't touch upon. Her 6 deputies were brought before the judge and asked whether they would comply with the duty of processing "gay marriage" paperwork; 5 of the 6 said they would, although some under protest. Davis was then asked whether she had an issue with their doing so in lieu of her; Davis indicated that she did. To me, that's the clincher; it's not an issue of conscience or religious accommodation, but of obstruction of law.
I think Rand Paul wanted to make the general point that marriage should be privatized and that federal intervention in imposing socially experimental constructs on traditional state/local regulation of marriage violates the principle of federalism. No libertarian can consistently object to these points.
I agree that Paul's discussion of the issue was somewhat vague; he should have discussed the issue from the context of the rule of law. In part, gay fascists have been targeting those with religious or moral objections to their agenda, whether it's wedding products/services or Kim Davis, and using State force to punish them. The piece author fails to point out that there were workarounds in Kentucky for gays to process marriage paperwork as discussed by Davis' attorneys. It's within this context that First Amendment issues come into play.
The problem I have with the Reason and Cato Institute opinion writers on the issue of "gay marriage" (besides the disingenuous references to miscegenation laws, including this author; the Catholic Church, for instance,opposed those) is their conceptually muddled advocacy of marriage as a positive right; none of the states were violating the negative rights of gays; they could organize and live in their own communities, enter unfettered into their own relationships, make commitments to each other, engage in contracts, etc. It's one thing to say subsidization of (traditional) marriage is wrong, another thing to argue, let's add to the problem by including gays. Conceptually, it's rather like saying social welfare programs discriminate against rich folks, so on an equal protection basis, they should qualify, too. The correct libertarian position is to oppose the concept of social welfare. This is rather like FDR's creative inspiration to reject an old age dole and vest the rich into a lockbox concept of social security.
(Catholic Libertarians). This is exactly what's wrong with government being involved in marriage (anything?). It requires force for its mandates and sometimes people who have done no harm are harmed. #libertarian #Catholic
The issue here is not religious accommodation but of outright dereliction of duty. (And I'm not speaking as someone who agrees with the two SCOTUS decisions on "gay marriage".) She took an oath of office to fulfill the law, not make or approve it. As a matter of contract, she's in breach, and for libertarians, that's fundamental.
I don't even think this is a matter of conscience per se; she isn't participating in or enabling the marriage. There's a difference between, say, conscientiously objecting to military service and obstructing military recruitment efforts. She is doing more the latter. If she has a moral issue with complying with this morphed Statist "marriage" construct (we Catholics believe true marriage is a sacrament, not something conferred by the State), the proper response is to resign from office. She could try to change the law, say, by promoting a marriage amendment to the US Constitution, but she on her own did not have the authority to obstruct the law.
Going back to the religious accommodation issue, you have to look at something not discussed in the above-cited post: Her 6 deputy clerks were also summoned to court and specifically asked whether they would comply with the law in lieu of Davis' defiance; 5 of the 6 agreed, some of who would do so under protest. Davis was then asked whether she would try to obstruct their compliance, and she had issues with their doing so. That's why I don't think you can argue religious liberty in this case; it's obstruction of the law.
Now as to putting someone in a cage for a nonviolent crime, I agree with you, and I also agree that marriage should be privatized. In this discussion I'm just looking at the facts on the ground.
So, obey the law regardless of your conscience? Extreme example, what if you worked for the state penitentiary and a court made it mandatory for you to euthanize prisoners when they got sick. Would you quit, protest, or comply?
Resign and protest.
Tell me what other civil servant has ever been IMPRISONED for refusing to do an aspect of their job. Fire her, maybe. Imprison her... that's clearly abusive and extreme.
She's not a civil servant--she's an elected Democrat. You can't fire her because she's an elected official. The Kentucky governor and attorney general have already told her to comply, resign, or face a misdemeanor charge for failing to comply with her duties as a public official. You would have to impeach her, unlikely in a state which strongly supports traditional marriage. But as a state official, by discrimination, she's violating the gay couple's rights and they filed a civil rights case based on the recent court decision and the Fourteenth Amendment. This is an open-and-shut case of obstructing the law and contempt of court, for which the court can fine and/or throw her in jail. Keep in mind not only is she refusing to do this but objects to any of her 6 deputy clerks doing it instead. I think jail is harsh for any nonviolent crime, but Kim Davis is engaging in deliberate misconduct. If she has a moral objection to carrying out the duties of her job, she should resign; she's not doing that.
What law has she broken? So a judge could order me to jail if I do something the judge doesn't like, even if it's not breaking any laws? That's scary
Somewhat unclear discussion. LC is right--she's in contempt of court--federal court. Kim Davis has broken the law; when SCOTUS made its recent Obergefell ruling imposing gay marriage on all the states (cf. the Fourteenth Amendment). Technically she's breaking both state law and federal law. The Kentucky AG is attempt to charge her with a misdemeanor for official misconduct in not performing her specified duties, but basically this would require impeachment proceedings (since she is an elected official). The gay couple filed a civil rights case in federal court because states are not allowed to discriminate and she is a state official. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401
Okay it's true that as the volume of regulations increases, the chances of unknowingly breaking some rule increases--there are books that say all of us probably break multiple laws daily, and under some white glove test, if the law is out to get you, they throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks, just like Capone got convicted not on organized crime, but tax evasion.
But Kim Davis is indisputably in contempt of the federal court, and the appropriate sanction is fine and/or jail. First, after Obergefell, Kentucky's marriage law changed. Kim Davis, by not complying as a state official, has put Kentucky out of compliance with the 14th amendment. The governor ordered her to comply or resign; otherwise, misdemeanor charges would be filed, with likely impeachment proceedings; that's what Davis was trying to stave off by going to SCOTUS--and lost. In the meanwhile, a gay couple filed a civil rights case in federal case. Davis' attorneys tried to argue because almost all other counties were in compliance, her noncompliance was not at issue. What particularly strips her excuse of religious liberty is when 5 of her 6 deputy clerks said they would be willing to comply with the law, Davis was unwilling to step aside.
Whether the other persons mentioned have been brought up charges, I don't know; I do know that in the past the Congress has sued Presidents over executive orders and won. I do have concerns about lawlessness of this Administration over selective prioritization. But I believe this suit was brought by the private sector gay couple, not the government. So if the author was talking government-initiated lawsuits, we're talking apples and oranges.
(Libertarian Catholic). Pray for the Syrian refugees. This is horrifying.
Sorry, this boy wasn't a refugee, he was the victim of a father who wanted free dental care and risked his whole family to get it. They had been living in Turkey for three years, job, flat, everything. But it wasn't enough. It is the father's fault the boy is dead.
I usually don't want to flame on LC threads, but if you read the above-cited WSJ column, the OP's assessment is contemptible. If you don't realize that the Kurds in Turkey have had issues with the Turkish government for years (Kurd want their own independent homeland) and ISIS has brutally attacked the Kurd in upper Iraq, you are out of touch on current events. The paper says that the father's job in Turkey wasn't enough to cover his family's needs; the initial plan was for him to travel to Europe to have his teeth fixed (a BBC report says that he had earlier been kidnapped by ISIS, which pulled all his teeth), find a job and then bring his family over, but his wife couldn't support herself and their two children in his absence, so they went with him. The smugglers abandoned ship under bad sailing conditions; they are morally responsible, not to mention the need to be smuggled because of immigration barriers, so Europe is also partially responsible.
(Ron Paul). Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has been sent to jail for refusing to sign off on same-sex marriage certificates. She claims her faith prevents her from doing so. Is she a lawbreaker, prisoner of conscience...or both. My view today on the Liberty Report: Prisoner Of Conscience? The Case Of The Kentucky Clerk https://youtu.be/CW8LwE_DqH0
Ron Paul is correct that the Obergefell decision violates the tenth amendment traditional state responsibilities and marriage is a private-sector institution. As I've discussed elsewhere, there is a distinction between negative rights (things that government must not infringe upon without due process--life, liberty and property) and positive rights (things government must do in our behalf--say, guarantee income, health care, an old age pension, etc.) We who are pro-liberty argue there are no such things as positive rights. Gays have broadly exercised their negative rights to form communities, enter relationships, call their commitments whatever they want, including "marriage", in all 50 states; this focus on "marriage equality" is all about getting access to State goodies or subsidies to marriage. Paul and I agree that the State should not be subsidizing relationships. Now there are a couple of things that Ron Paul didn't stress here. One is the fact that Kim Davis was openly defying the law. The Kentucky Attorney General and Governor are in the process of filing a misdemeanor for failure to carry out her duties as a public official if she didn't comply or resign. Davis is suing the Governor and went to SCOTUS in an attempt to block her termination--and lost. And the federal district judge found that 5 of her 6 deputy clerks were willing to process gay marriage paperwork and asked her if she had a problem with delegating her authority (she did). So you really can't argue religious liberty, because she was obstructing the process. Now I don't know what other options are available, e.g., indefinite suspension from her position until she agreed to comply or fines that essentially forfeited her pay. However, I don't buy into Paul's argument that Kim Davis was confused because of any delay of Kentucky's legislature in revising the law to reflect Obergefell, identify RFRA-like workarounds to the likes of Davis. I also don't like Davis' argument, which Paul seems to like, that in-county gay couples could file out of county; there are broad principles of equal protection and the rule of law that should apply, clearly being violated in this context.
Finally, I think Kim Davis is confusing this State mutated, morphed construct of legal "marriage" with the traditional private sector institution of marriage. By processing "gay marriage" paperwork, she is not responsible for making or judging the State marriage construct. I've used this analogy in other comments; one might argue conscientious objection to serving in the military on moral grounds, but that's different from obstructing miliary recruitment efforts. She doesn't have to personally vet couples or participate in weddings; all she is doing is processing paperwork.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Ken Catalino via Townhall |
Tina Turner, "We Don't Need Another Hero". Along with "The Best", my favorite Turner tune. The irresistible musical arrangement and Turner's soaring vocals make for pop magic.
